She managed to think truly and utterly out-of-the-box, created a real and honest representation of the character of her grandmother on photographic film via photographic process and teaches us that this is exactly what we try to capture in a good portrait, and that therefore this too can be thought of as a portrait.

The thinking behind it alone is worthy of a prize, so that such an artist can continue to experiment and develop work that provokes us to engage our mind, without being provocative in itself.

I love it. I don't think it is particularly beautiful, but the thinking behind it: A+

As for the copyright debaters: Let's leave Art to curators and law to lawyers. To those who triggered that discussion I'd only say this: "Jealous much?"

She managed to think truly and utterly out-of-the-box, created a real and honest representation of the character of her grandmother on photographic film via photographic process and teaches us that this is exactly what we try to capture in a good portrait, and that therefore this too can be thought of as a portrait.

The thinking behind it alone is worthy of a prize, so that such an artist can continue to experiment and develop work that provokes us to engage our mind, without being provocative in itself.

I love it. I don't think it is particularly beautiful, but the thinking behind it: A+

As for the copyright debaters: Let's leave Art to curators and law to lawyers. To those who triggered that discussion I'd only say this: "Jealous much?"

Now you have proved you have a fantastic sense of humour! Of course! put the power to make or break into sterile hands! Love it - wish I'd thought of that first!

It's not clear what it is, technically. The claim appears to be that it's some sort of photogram, but that doesn't seem to hold water. There are technical details given in the artist's statement that don't make a lot of sense.

I like the idea, I like the story. The other works in contest catalog suggest that this is pretty much the deal with this contest -- distinctly outré pieces that are, in some sense, portraits.

The thing does depend, more or less, on the story being true, and the story is in fact pretty questionable.

Well, look.. it's a record of an individual captured on a medium that depends on the interaction of light with the medium to produce the final result. (I assume the film was exposed after it was scratched etc. and a print was made)

Well, look.. it's a record of an individual captured on a medium that depends on the interaction of light with the medium to produce the final result. (I assume the film was exposed after it was scratched etc. and a print was made)

I'm not sure I'd buy my own argument, but one could make it

Indeed, just as with wooden wings: stay away from high places if you want to try test flights.

Well, look.. it's a record of an individual captured on a medium that depends on the interaction of light with the medium to produce the final result. (I assume the film was exposed after it was scratched etc. and a print was made)

I did the experiment 40 years ago in high-school art class: if you scribble directly on an emulsion, you ionize some silver halides in the same way that a photon does. You then develop it directly, no light necessary.

I guess it was then printed... or more likely the negative was scanned, so I guess that could squeak you into the "photographic" requirement.

Exactly. I think it was Rubinstein who commented that if you are an artist, competition is absurd because if you aren't the best at what you do, you should stop. Whatever someone else thinks is irrelevant, you can't accept to be the 2nd or 3rd best at someone else's thing.

At the local photography club, there is a gentleman whose expertise is underwater photography in rivers and lakes – snorkeling, not scuba, and he still does this in his late '70's. He has some impressive and interesting photos. And he keeps entering pictures of snapping turtles and underwater logs and root balls into the club's portrait competitions. However, in the last couple of years, the highest marks in the portrait category have gone to portraits of dogs.

No, Oscar, it isn't about flightless birds: it's about a sense of balance, of bearings.

There are recognized forms of portraiture that are dedicated to our furry or feathered friends and even, for all I know, to goldfish; that's fine, and insofar as it goes, perfectly laudable. Those who are into these esoteric forms of life and photography are all aware and highly cognizant of what makes them tick. (Ouch.)

There is no believable way to stretch that "winning portrait" to fit any sound definition of the portrait genre for which, basically, you are obliged to include the subject as a basic ingredient. If you abandon that, you could photograph a football and call it Beckham, and then find yourself getting sued by Rooney for invading his privacy and/or using his image without an existing contract. Do you see the problem when one abandons basic, common sense rules?

She managed to think truly and utterly out-of-the-box, created a real and honest representation of the character of her grandmother on photographic film via photographic process and teaches us that this is exactly what we try to capture in a good portrait, and that therefore this too can be thought of as a portrait.

I am not sure I can follow that this is a "real and honest representation of the character" If it requires a considerable caption to explain what this is representing.

I am pretty confident that if this product was shown to a group of people without any captioning or explanation that very few of them would state that this was a "real and honest representation" of someone's character.

They may remark on it being a abstract

Logged

I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and transmits light.